According to verse 15, the “covering” referred to is long hair. Therefore, according to this passage, it is a shame and dishonor to Christ for a man to have long hair. There is no place in the Bible that even insinuates that Jesus had long hair. Sodomite homosexuals such as Michelangelo painted Jesus to look effeminate and to have long hair in order to make him fit their own queer image.

These same type of paintings have also given people the idea that “Jesus did not wear pants.” Some have even made utterly ridiculous and bizarre statements such as, “pants had not been invented yet,” or “they didn’t have pants back then.” According to these “scholars,” the men of the past who built the pyramids and Stonehenge just hadn’t thought of pants yet!

What I believe is based upon the Bible, not “historical evidence,” but the historical record also proves that men in the ancient Middle East wore pants. For example, at the famous battle of Thermopylae (480BC), every historian reports that the Persian (Iranian) soldiers were wearing pants down to their ankles, while the homosexual, perverted Spartans were wearing short skirts or even less!

"A man with short or no hair... is a slave, and is NOT an individual."

Really? Maybe they just happen to be an individual who likes their hair short? Or must everyone follow set guidelines in order to be an 'individual'? Also, you seem fairly misguided in your belief as to exactly what slavery is. There's enough stupidity in that statement to make even Steven L Anderson blush.

It is well known that Satan wears a suit, although not a tie because he's not a pooftah, just evil. Most satanic people wear a suit and they also wear a tie because they are vain and poofy dandies and like to pontificate ludicrously while looking like a limp-wristed fairy (see example on Steven L. Anderson's blog).

Hi Steven. I hate to tell you this, because it appears you have a fixation about men's 'parts', but when Jesus was crucified, he would have been totally naked. All his tackle would have been fully on view to anyone who cared to look. The Romans had no concern to preserve the modesty of those they were out to kill slowly on the cross. Humiliation, too, was an important part of crucifixion.

This kind of makes a nonsense of your prissy prudishness about hair, breeches (actually this means a kind of loin-cloth, not trousers) and other hyper modesty claims you are making.

You're welcome to accompany me to the beach when summer comes. We don't wear anything at all. And know what, it's not prurient like your mind will probably think. Nudity, when generally and openly practised, is the least sexual thing you could imagine. We are not interested in men's dangly bits because they are not covered for shame. They are on view in total innocence - not that I think you could ever see this.

"For example, at the famous battle of Thermopylae (480BC), every historian reports that the Persian (Iranian) soldiers were wearing pants down to their ankles, while the homosexual, perverted Spartans were wearing short skirts or even less!"

A) Stuff in general, including things like pants and shoes, was expensive back then, and most could not afford it. They would have to either make it themselves or go without. Going without was cheaper and did the job if you were wearing a long enough tunic.

What is so bad about wearing robes? Every depiction of Jesus, not just those of Michelangelo, portray him as having long hair and robes. If Michelangelo had just done it for the "gay agenda" which doesn't even exist, then wouldn't there have been massive outcry from the religious establishment when they saw this perceived blasphemy? Do you even reread what you type?! Anyway, since there is no inherent link between pants and masculinity, only a cultural link, I think the fact that since practically no one wore pants at the time of Jesus means that you are wrong. And I doubt that you're correct about the Persians and pants, considering that the Greeks and Romans had no word for such a garment, and they did in fact have contact with the Persians, and would have at least taken a loanword to describe the Persians' style of dress.

Well, as most of the points in this post have been addressed already, I'll not repeat them.

However, an insistence that long hair is "effeminate" and "gay" contradicts not only history (short hair for men in the west being common only since the two world wars), but current society in which gay men typically have short or very short hair.

'For example, at the famous battle of Thermopylae (480BC), every historian reports that the Persian (Iranian) soldiers were wearing pants down to their ankles, while the homosexual, perverted Spartans were wearing short skirts or even less!'

Yeah the Fundies got their arse's (note the spelling my american friends) by men is skirts!

Speaking as an Art History teacher with more than a passing interest in the ancient Middle East, it is indeed possible that Jesus had fairly short hair (like a Roman) and sometimes wore short pants- worn by fishermen and laborers. However, when preaching he probably wore more voluminous garments. Trousers were pretty much only worn by horsemen. Our image of Jesus is mostly based upon Byzantine art.

Renaissance artists made no attempt to depict things historically. In addition to showing Jesus with long hair, they also showed him in 15th century Tuscany and showed Mary and the evangelists in Gothic cathedrals.

Statues from 1st century Rome, Cyprus and Syria invariably show men wearing robes of various lengths. These were formal portraits, so they may not be quite what they wore in everyday life, but it's pretty likely men wore robes of some sort, not pants. Hair appears to have been worn medium length and unstyled. The Fayum portraits (example) from Roman-occupied 1st century Egypt show Middle Eastern-looking men who may have looked a lot like Jesus, although Jewish men like Jesus may have worm somewhat different beards.

--- "Sodomite homosexuals such as Michelangelo painted Jesus to look effeminate and to have long hair in order to make him fit their own queer image." ---

Someone needs to tell Steven that the effeminate/mincing queen gay male stereotype is merely a pop culture fascination invented in the last 30-some years, and that only a small portion of gay men choose to go along with it. Over-the-top gay men are merely the only kind Hollywood allows to succeed 99% of the time, and thus they're the only ones the general public sees in the media. That leads people to believe that all gay men are women that just happen to have dicks.